Network Ten has argued it should not have to foot the bill for “unnecessarily duplicative or wasteful” costs incurred by veteran journalist Lisa Wilkinson during her defamation battle with Bruce Lehrmann.
In a landmark Federal Court ruling last week, Judge Michael Lee found that Lehrmann had, all things considered, raped Brittany Higgins in Parliament House in March 2019.
The judge later dismissed Lehrmann’s claim that he had been defamed by Wilkinson’s 2021 interview with Higgins on The Project.
The highly publicized fight will return to court next week for a hearing that will determine whether Lehrmann will pay legal costs incurred by Network 10 and its former star host, which are estimated to exceed $8 million.
Judge Michael Lee found that Lehrmann, considering the odds, had raped Brittany Higgins in Parliament House in March 2019.
However, if Lehrmann cannot pay the multimillion-dollar bill, Network 10 has argued that it should not have to “foot the bill” for any unreasonable costs Ms. Wilkinson may have racked up.
It asks the court to appoint an arbitrator to examine the legal bills acquired by the former The Project host and decide whether the specified costs were reasonable.
In court filings, Network 10’s lawyer, Matt Collins KC, wrote that it was not obligated to reimburse Ms. Wilkinson for costs incurred “in an unnecessarily duplicative or wasteful manner.”
“Ms. Wilkinson had no right to incur expenses… as she pleased, assuming Network 10 would ultimately foot the bill,” he wrote.
“It was required to incur costs responsibly, taking into account how those costs could be minimized given the separate but related work being carried out by Network 10.”
The broadcaster acknowledged it was liable for the costs Ms Wilkinson accrued while fighting Lehrmann’s claim for damages for her infamous Logies speech and defending qualified privilege.
Network 10 has argued that it should not have to foot the bill for “unnecessarily duplicative or wasteful” costs incurred by veteran journalist Lisa Wilkinson during her defamation battle with Bruce Lehrmann.
However, Dr Collins stated that “different considerations” should apply to the accumulation of costs by the journalist in defending common issues, such as the use of the truth defense.
He maintained that the interests of the company and its former star employee were “totally aligned” in mounting the defense, which he said had been “prepared and directed by Network 10.”
In her own submissions, Ms Wilkinson’s lawyer, Sue Chrysanthou SC, responded that the principles relating to compensation costs were “well established” and that such an order would require “some special or unusual feature”.
The fight comes after Network 10 and Wilkinson clashed earlier this year in a heated dispute over whether it was reasonable for the journalist to obtain her own legal representation.
In an affidavit submitted to the court, Ms Wilkinson said she was “gutted” by her employer’s “cruel” and “disingenuous” decision not to cover her legal costs.
She explained that she had hired her own lawyers to defend her in the defamation suit after she lost faith in the legal team employed by Network 10, who she felt had “abandoned” her.
The judge later dismissed Mr Lehrmann’s claim that he had been defamed by Ms Wilkinson’s 2021 interview with Ms Higgins on The Project.
After an intense two-day hearing, Network 10 relented and agreed that its decision had been reasonable.
The dramatic jump back was criticized by Ms Wilkinson’s lawyer, Michael Elliot SC, as a “disgrace” and a “vindication of our position”.
Judge Lee ordered the network to pay its former presenter’s legal fees after accepting she had “not acted thoughtlessly” in hiring her own legal counsel.
Whether Wilkinson’s entire bill will be paid by his former employer will become clear when the matter returns to the Federal Court next week.